QUESTION:: WHY DOES THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE AGAINST ITS INTERESTS?

@oralloy,

According to everyone who has been on site. The existenceof sarin was relegated to ONE shell that was set as an IED from the early 90's. It was a 155 mm round that had sarin in it but was not part of any "Cache of WMDs" Same for mustard, it was a pile of 155 rounds qith degraded nitrate mustard. This too was from the days of Iraqs war with Iran and killing the Kurds.

There was NO evience of sddam "ability to mount a large attack with any kind of WMDs," (in cluding supposd nuclear)
The Bush admin was using all kinds of fraud and deceptive means to convince us that a war with Iraq was justified.
Even the story of the "aluminum tubes" and the "centriguges " (Which never existed at all since the days when Israel bombed a reactor that couldve been breeding Plutonium.

It was all a lie and we ere decieved by the Admin and the loud patrons in the Congress.

Scott Ritter got it right and should be hailed as a hero. He outlasted a corrupt administration who faked all the data in order to pursue a fake war. Shame on us for being so blind.
I fell intothe same mold s you initially. Then I started asking questions and found out we were really duped (Probably the puppetmaster was doing the thinking for lil Georgie)

3 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

It is a fact that hundreds of chemical shells were found in the Iraqi desert.

You keep repeating this as if it proves something.

It does not, other than at one time they manufactured some pieces of metal.

They could have been manufactured, and never armed/loaded with a payload.

They could have been armed and discarded a long time before GW Bush decided to invade Iraq.

It does not show that there were WMDs in Iraq at the time Bush decided to invade.

Edit: I see that better men than I have addressed this. Please go back to your regularly scheduled Cuckoo! clocking.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Yes, you found 500 shells. However WMD were not found in Iraq.

Wrong. Mustard gas and sarin both count as WMD. And both were found in Iraq.

Of course they were because they were listed by UNSCOM. The argument was made that Saddam was hiding weapons of WMD from the UN. No such thing was found. Your attempt to claim it did happen flies in the face of every official report.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I have to love your logic oralloy.

So do you think I can take your guns away because of the shooter in Aurora? It makes as much sense as the argument that 9/11 justifies attacking Iraq.

I just find it rather interesting that you are in support of the UN banning weapons on one hand while on the other you argue they don't have the right to ban anyone's weapons.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Thinking??

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Same for mustard, it was a pile of 155 rounds qith degraded nitrate mustard. This too was from the days of Iraqs war with Iran and killing the Kurds.

Yes. And one of the Bush Administration's claims was that Saddam was still holding chemical weapons from before 1991.

They were wrong about most of their claims, but that one they seem to have been right about.

farmerman wrote:

There was NO evience of sddam "ability to mount a large attack with any kind of WMDs," (in cluding supposd nuclear)

I suspect it may still have been pretty unpleasant for our troops if those degraded chemical weapons had been fired at them.

farmerman wrote:

The Bush admin was using all kinds of fraud and deceptive means to convince us that a war with Iraq was justified.
Even the story of the "aluminum tubes" and the "centriguges " (Which never existed at all since the days when Israel bombed a reactor that couldve been breeding Plutonium.

It was all a lie and we ere decieved by the Admin and the loud patrons in the Congress.

Scott Ritter got it right and should be hailed as a hero. He outlasted a corrupt administration who faked all the data in order to pursue a fake war. Shame on us for being so blind.
I fell intothe same mold s you initially. Then I started asking questions and found out we were really duped (Probably the puppetmaster was doing the thinking for lil Georgie)

Being mistaken is not the same thing as lying.

True that they were mistaken on most of their claims. I don't see any reason to think it was deliberate deception however.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

oralloy wrote:
It is a fact that hundreds of chemical shells were found in the Iraqi desert.

You keep repeating this as if it proves something.

That's because it does.

DrewDad wrote:

It does not, other than at one time they manufactured some pieces of metal.

The presence of chemical weapons proves a bit more than that.

DrewDad wrote:

They could have been manufactured, and never armed/loaded with a payload.

The presence of sarin or mustard gas in the various shells, is a pretty strong indicator that they were loaded with sarin or mustard gas.

DrewDad wrote:

They could have been armed and discarded a long time before GW Bush decided to invade Iraq.

Could be.

DrewDad wrote:

It does not show that there were WMDs in Iraq at the time Bush decided to invade.

Yes it does.

DrewDad wrote:

Edit: I see that better men than I have addressed this.

Yes. You should strive harder to keep quiet when smarter people are talking.

DrewDad wrote:

Please go back to your regularly scheduled Cuckoo! clocking.

You engage in name-calling because you are too stupid to come up with an intelligent argument.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
Yes, you found 500 shells. However WMD were not found in Iraq.

Wrong. Mustard gas and sarin both count as WMD. And both were found in Iraq.

Of course they were because they were listed by UNSCOM. The argument was made that Saddam was hiding weapons of WMD from the UN. No such thing was found.

There were a number of claims made by the Bush Administration. One of those claims was merely that Saddam was holding WMDs left over from before the 1991 war. That claim is borne out by the fact that weapons were found from before the 1991 war.

Some of the other claims, like the claims that Saddam was trying to make new WMDs, turned out to be mistaken.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Except the claim was NOT correct. Saddam was not holding onto those shells They were discovered discarded in the desert and they were declared as lost by Saddam. For you to try to argue Saddam had those shells and was lying about it is not borne out by any facts.

But feel free to make up whatever you want if it makes your reality better for you.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I have to love your logic oralloy.

So do you think I can take your guns away because of the shooter in Aurora? It makes as much sense as the argument that 9/11 justifies attacking Iraq.

My logic? Surely you don't think I am Newt Gingrich.

(I'm not.)

My logic: We invaded Iraq because we felt like invading Iraq, and that is all the justification that is required.

Sorry to sound a bit like Attila the Hun. Note that I don't support invading most countries.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

So the invasion had nothing to do with weapons? That's an interesting argument since you are trying to justify that Saddam had such weapons

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
I have to love your logic oralloy.

So do you think I can take your guns away because of the shooter in Aurora? It makes as much sense as the argument that 9/11 justifies attacking Iraq.

My logic? Surely you don't think I am Newt Gingrich.

One normally doesn't post something claiming it justifies something unless they agree with it. But then you are not a normal person, I guess.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Yes. And one of the Bush Administration's claims was that Saddam was still holding chemical weapons from before 1991

Thqt statement would only make some sense if it were used to justify the war plans before our little adventure. AS it was , qe were already in Irag for 3 years when they found the IED and the piles of mustard shells (hich they wrroneously claimed "Could" have also contained sarin.So, it appears they were scrambling around post facto to justify why they were already in Iraq. IF WE COULDNT POINT TO ANY WMDS BEFORE WE WENT IN< WHY AGAIN WAS THE WMD CARD USED TO GO IN?
Dontya think e were lied to?

2 Replies

@farmerman,

After Bush couldn't find any WMD's, he changed his goal to "remove Saddam, and bring democracy to Iraq." The Iraqi people never asked Bush to intercede.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I was just trying to explain to ora-how I concluded that Bush lied from the get-go.

If the Admin wasnt lying, then they were really gullible and stupid enough to believe their own tripe.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

I'm agreeing with you; ora wouldn't know pre and post if he was provided with all the facts and evidence on anything.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

they KNOW they all have the potential to be 1%'rs, and they want the laws to support them when they get there

Yeah, sure, the chances of someone, without the right connections, getting there is about the same as winning the big one in the lottery

Kids should be taught to prepare for a job they like, really the best they can do, not buy into impossible dreams.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.
John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

I believe people vote on simplistic terms and on principles (their own principles). They don't vote on the mechanics of how to achieve those principles.

farmerman wrote:
WHY DOES THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE AGAINST ITS INTERESTS?
They don't think they are. Politics is complex. Solutions are complex. Voters are not.

As a result, voters vote for the one they like -- not his platform, not his integrity, not his flip flops, not his morality, Just the one they have been brainwashed to like.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO.
John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

The use of such words as "simplistic terms" by rosborne really doesn't answer why "people vote against their own interests." I think "lazy, clueless, brainwashed, and ignorance" fits much better.

2 Replies

QUESTION:: WHY DOES THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE AGAINST ITS INTERESTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know